h/t Benny Peiser – the UK MET office has published a study which suggests solar activity is currently plummeting, the fastest rate of decline in 9300 years. The study also raises the odds of Maunder Minimum style conditions by 2050 from 8% to 15 – 20%.
Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum
The abstract of the study;
The past few decades have been characterized by a period of relatively high solar activity. However, the recent prolonged solar minimum and subsequent weak solar cycle 24 have led to suggestions that the grand solar maximum may be at an end. Using past variations of solar activity measured by cosmogenic isotope abundance changes, analogue forecasts for possible future solar output have been calculated. An 8% chance of a return to Maunder Minimum-like conditions within the next 40 years was estimated in 2010 (ref. 2). The decline in solar activity has continued, to the time of writing, and is faster than any other such decline in the 9,300 years covered by the cosmogenic isotope data1. If this recent rate of decline is added to the analysis, the 8% probability estimate is now raised to between 15 and 20%.
Read more: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html
Naturally the MET thinks that anthropogenic forcing will overwhelm the cooling effect. In the context of farcical model predictions of anthropogenic warming of up to +6.6c by 2100, which the MET still officially treats as serious science, a degree or so of cooling, due to a lull in solar activity, might not seem a big deal.
Nevertheless, the fact the MET have raised the risk of significant global cooling from their 8% estimate, produced in 2010, to 15 – 20% is intriguing. The MET assures us however, that any reprieve from global warming will be temporary – potentially leaving open the option of running global warming scares, in the midst of brutal little ice age style winters.
Perhaps the science is not as settled, as some politicians have been led to believe.
Climategate Email 0700.txt
… Communications between scientists and politicians are becoming more and more important and the scientific population must be large enough to be visible. D Raynaud commented that the work by Stocker in 1997 on the gross rate of emissions and the change in thermo circulation is important to conferences such as Kyoto. K Hutter added that politicians accused scientists of a high signal to noise ratio; scientists must make sure that they come up with stronger signals. The time-frame for science and politics is very different; politicians need instant information, but scientific results take a long time
A Ghazi pointed out that the funding is set once the politicians want the research to be done. We need to make them understand that we do not understand the climate system. …
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The establishment academics, amazingly , seem finally to have noticed that the sun has some influence on the climate and are even paying attention to the 60 year temperature cycle which any high school graduate can plainly see in the temperature data. See Fig 15 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
The key question in climate forecasting however is where we are with regard to the quasi – millennial solar cycle which is also plainly apparent in the temperatures. see Fig 5 (From Humlum ) at the link above.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JRFF7ZFvgKw/U81X0SC899I/AAAAAAAAAS8/PIcfIxO3QUQ/s1600/GISP2%2520TemperatureSince10700%2520BP%2520with%2520CO2%2520from%2520EPICA%2520DomeC.GIF
(The GISP2 record ends around 1854, and the two graphs therefore end here. There has since been an temperature increase to about the same level as during the Medieval Warm Period and to about 395 ppm for CO2)
Looking at the decline in solar activity discussed in recent papers and seen in Figs 13 and 14 since 1991
it is reasonable to suggest that we are now 24 years past the peak in the solar activity cycle; The corresponding temperature peak ( with a 12 year lag time ) may well turn out to be the peak in the RSS temperature trend data in 2003 since when we have a 12 year cooling trend.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JVvSFvACeJY/VYS8i51Cs1I/AAAAAAAAAWw/g-B0x8ouSJg/s1600/may2015trendrss.png
So, here is the first of our recurrent peddlers tooting his horn, watch for more to come.
There is no evidence that there is a 1000-yr period with predictive capability and that it has just peaked.
I’m with Leif on this. It’s the quality of evidence that you have to examine and do so with a very cynical attitude
The linked blog also provides estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling.
I am also willing to predict that Leif will finally be willing to recognize the obvious in about 2123 after two more 60 year cycles.
If you are correct, I’ll buy you a beer in 2123. BTW, there very likely is a 60-yr cycle in climate, but not in solar activity, so there is little to concede. Your 1000-yr cycle is just a cyclomania-symptom and need not be taken seriously.
The key is ‘are predictions coming true?’ So far, global warming predictions are failing fast. Global cooling predictions are increasingly accurate. One can have all sorts of theories about stuff but proof is in the pudding.
This is why the temperature data tampering is such a huge issue. It is all about manufacturing ‘hottest years evah!’ all the time when this is not happening.
Leif . Glad to see we are in agreement re 60 year temperature cycle. That’s a start. Do you have any opinion on whether the temperature in 2063 is likely to be warmer or cooler than in 2003?
Do you think earth will cool until 2033?
Well, the 60-yr cycle is not your invention, so you cannot take credit for that. And it is not a true cycle, so it has limited predictability. I don’t think anybody can with confidence predict 2063. If they claim they can, they are fraudsters. Do you make such a claim?
And BTW, I don’t agree with you in particular. The 60-yr cycle is well known, Norman Page or not.
Leif. The original comment didn’t claim any special responsibility for discovering the 60 year cycle .I said
“The establishment academics, amazingly , seem finally to have noticed that the sun has some influence on the climate and are even paying attention to the 60 year temperature cycle which any high school graduate can plainly see in the temperature data.”
I notice you didn’t respond to the questions.I assume that ,as usual,you don’t care to speculate.
I do science, not mindless speculation.
Leif The IPCC claim 95% certainty for their range of temperature forecasts .Apparently this certainty was achieved by about 20 guys sitting round a table and voting their expert opinions .Is this fraudulent? Only if some of the persons involved really didn’t believe the numbers they approved but just went along for the ride to form an acceptable consensus. How can anyone apart from the individual persons involved know that?
Similarly if I or anybody else chooses to make a forecast for any time in the future and makes the methods, arguments and data base transparent , it may well be wrong but why on earth do you think it is necessarily fraudulent.?
makes the methods, arguments and data base transparent
Transparency is not enough, it also has to be credible and plausible, and there you fail. Then to claim that you are nevertheless to be believed, that is the fraud sneaks in.
Careful Leif, if computer scientists are right about the technological singularity, you might have to buy that beer 🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
Eric We already have a fine example of such a singularity in the growing explosion of stupidity seen in the successive IPCC reports. The problem of such complex computer programs and their untestable outputs is that masses of people who should know better adopt these outputs as a basis for their CAGW religion.
Leif My approach is to present links to the data and state clearly the assumptions used in any forecast and let readers judge for themselves. Obviously I fail to convince you personally.- but I find that unsurprising since credibility and plausibility is a judgment made by the reader and your views on sun and climate are well known and pretty much set in stone.
As to what I claim re belief in my forecasts this is what actually say
“The chief uncertainties relate to the exact timing of the current millennial solar activity peak and to the regionally variable lag time between the solar activity peak and its appearance as a peak in land temperatures and global SST and the RSS data A +/- 12 year lag between the neutron count and the RSS data has been used here following Fig3 in Usoskin et al:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560…19U
Other investigators have suggested lags between 12 and 20 years. We will see.
How confident should one be in the predictions in this post? The pattern and quasi-periodicity method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures. However, statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigor for the uninitiated and, in relation to an ensemble of IPCC climate models, are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up. This is where scientific judgment comes in, as some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others. A past record of successful forecasting such as indicated above is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure (say 65/35) for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that certainty drops rapidly.
Your Usoskin link is dead [incomplete]
your views on sun and climate are well known and pretty much set in stone.
That is complete nonsense. Nothing is set in stone. I’ll change my view if compelling evidence is brought forward. So far, you have not presented any.
Sorry this should work.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560…19U
did you try it yourself by clicking on the wordpress formatted page?
No. it works from my blog but for some reason doesn’t post to WUWT correctly. I’ll see what I can do.
I know the paper, of course, so do it for others
The Usoskin 2005 paper does not reflect recent thinking on solar activity. e.g. uses the faulty old Group Sunspot Number. Here is a modern version of the realtionship between 14C and the GSN:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison-GSN-14C-Modulation.png
Leif if you have the time and inclination to follow this up go to
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
Scroll rapidly to Section 4 and click on the link there. See Fig 3 showing delay between solar activity and temperature.
I know that paper. [I know all relevant literature – that is my job to do] and as I said it is based on incorrect solar data.
Dr. Page, I agree with the notion that those in the warmist camp generally seem to think that the sun cannot cause warming when it’s more active, but now suddenly can certainly cause cooling when it’s activity wanes. That general bias can be seen from one article and discussion after another over the years. I believe such a bias even has something to do with the very poor accuracy of the models also.
Being a simple mechanic and truck driver I try to equate the suns heating of the earth more in the terms of industrial heating. With a gas IR heating unit being the much larger component than a forced draft unit. A gas IR unit heats the objects in the building while a forced draft unit heats the air it blows out and that in turn heats the objects in the building. As a rule a gas IR unit will make a person feel warmer faster but once the IR unit does heat of the contents of the building it goes much much longer before it has to kick on again and the heat is much more even.
Since water is our greatest heat reservoir on the planet I then ask, which unit would heat a large swimming pool that took up maybe, lets say, 71% of the floor space in the building quicker and more efficiently?
If I understand it, the orthodox position is that only solar irradiance can effect surface temperature. They deny that changes in the solar wind can have much effect on climate. If the theory that changes in the solar wind modulate cloudiness is correct, then we should see evidence of it in the next few years.
Not to mention the weakening of Earth’s magnetic field as well.
There is evidence for it in the Dalton Minimum, particularly through the colder run of years in Europe from 1807-1817, with a dearth of Aurora sightings. Page 11:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/92RG01571-Aurorae.pdf
CET:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat
The solar wind must have a direct effect on polar air pressure, that is where the solar wind couples with the atmosphere. At least by means of Joule heating and ozone destruction.
This paper is confirming what Lockwood has suggested which is this present decline in solar activity is very rapid. They are also correct in suggesting solar variability does indeed impact the climate, which is true and can be shown through the historical climatic record (not manipulated) when contrasted to solar variability especially when solar variability is shown in the context of Milankovitch Cycles and the phase of the PDO/AMO,ENSO and volcanic activity.
In addition the strength of the earth’s magnetic field has to be taking into account, for when this field is weak it will enhance given solar variability, while when strong it will moderate given solar variability. Presently the earth’s magnetic field like solar is in a rapid decline, however it still has a way to go on the down side before we can say the field is so weak that a magnetic excursion is likely to take place.
Weak solar and geomagnetic fields equate to a cooler climate.
However one last note on this article is they still cling to AGW theory which they think (wrongly) is going to somehow prevent global cooling. They are wrong on that score but the fact that they acknowledge solar variability and it’s impact on the climatic system is a step in the right direction.
The recent solar lull 2008-2010 shows that solar activity post 2005 is on a rapid decline, solar variability is indeed present (all one has to do is contrast the recent solar lull to solar activity 1950-2000 to confirm this), and that my low average value solar parameters (which I feel will cause a significant climatic impact) are attainable as is shown through the solar data in that time period.
The reason why the recent solar lull did not have a big impact on the climate in 2008-2010 is twofold. First the duration of the lull was not long enough and secondly not enough years of sub solar activity proceeded it.
If this recent solar lull has had the duration of the Maunder Minimum or Dalton Minimum ,a decline in global temperatures would have been the result but this decline in global temperatures as a result of solar activity on the decline has jut been delayed not postponed. I expect soon after the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends which is right around the corner a global temperature decline will take place along with a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern as will be evidenced by a negative AO,NAO and an expanded but weaker polar vortex in the N.H.
Sea surface temperatures will also start to show a more pronounced cooling trend in response to weaker solar irradiance.
A faster earth rotation (-LOD) is correlated with low solar activity which in turn is correlated to the ACI (atmospheric circulation index) becoming more meridional which in turn is correlated to lower global temperatures.
An increase in geological activity in association with prolonged minimum solar periods as shown by data (space and science center headed by Dr. Casey ) is also a big secondary effect associated with prolonged minimum solar periods of time which contributes to global cooling when solar activity is in this minimum phase.
MY CRITERIA FOR SOLAR PARAMETERS NEEDED FOR COOLING:
I will send those in my next post.
Here is the next peddler. Sal, we don’t need to see your speculations, again, and again, and again, and again, and …
You really don’t like disputes, do you? (clearing my throat) Um, we all complain about one sided web sites, is this one going to start punishing people for arguing?
Repeating the same old, tired, speculations is not arguing.
I present a very clear cut speculation if one wants to call it that which is I say the global temperature response will be down if my low average value solar parameters are meant or even approached.
If the resultant global temperature trend does not respond the way I suggest the theory or speculation will be wrong.
It is quite simple and to the point and I do not have any vague statements and or if and buts about it like so many in this field always do when presenting a climate forecast. My approach is clear cut and concise.
You say that if the sun does this or that, then the climate will do that or this, but you fail to demonstrate that that follows from your assumptions and also fail to forecast what the Sun will do, so your forecast has no value.
emsnews said:
>You really don’t like disputes, do you? (clearing my throat) Um, we all complain about one sided web sites,
We all complain about repetitious web sites too! I do sort of like this comment:
> this decline in global temperatures as a result of solar activity on the decline has jut been delayed not postponed.
I had thought that the decline had been postponed, not delayed.
Quite right, Lord Kelvin.
Yes, and…fast drop in solar output of various sorts means the effects are delayed thanks to oceans still being warmer. Once the earth adjusts to the new energy levels which are lower, the oceans will become colder and this means inevitably a colder climate which will impact the Northern Hemisphere the most.
Just like heating water. If you suddenly turn off the heat, the water doesn’t immediately get cold, it cools down slowly.
Your analogy is ridiculously ill-matched to the well-known and calculable change in solar radiance (includes all frequencies which themselves can be calculated in terms of potential change in W/m2 here on Earth by band width). Yes there is a calculable affect on temperature. Buried deep in Earth’s own natural intrinsic climate and weather pattern variation noise.
What keeps our oceans warm? Eh? Magic?
The sun heats the oceans. The water absorbs energy from this particular star. Minus that, our planet would be totally frozen.
Ergo: this star determines exactly how much energy is added to our oceans. No other force is as great and tiny changes in solar energy levels translates into big climate changes on the planet.
Your climate sensitivity is getting so small due to your various amplification guesses that you might as well accept that CO2 is equally capable of warming or cooling the planet.
You are conflating two different issues. Yes the Sun’s energy is absorbed by the oceans and if we had no Sun the oceans would turn cold nearly instantly all other things being equal (quite like a fantasy movie because lots of things would go south if the Sun went away). But we are not talking about that process, we are talking about anomalous regime shifts. And there are natural intrinsic Earth entities that can way out-do the Sun in terms of solar insolation change (described as the amount of solar energy that reaches the Earth’s surface).
CO2 has no where near the residence time of SW solar radiation. Residence time of energy input (which is what determines heat capacity) is what determines how much energy flux an equal watt per sq meter input generates. We simply do not have an accurate record of surface insolation (especial disparate w/l and the residence time of disparate w/L) into the oceans where residence time can vary from hours to centuries.
The pot on a flame analogy is very much potentially valid, until this surface insolation flux and WL specific variation and residence time is known over a fairly long time scale. Until then the null hypothesis is that the sun drives the ENSO cycles.
David, I believe you are incorrect. When an observation is made (as in box plots set on the ground), whatever effects are observed must first be determined to have a cause within that box. The null hypothesis is what is in the box.
In terms of Earth’s temperature variations, the null hypothesis must be within the confines of Earth (its oceans, atmosphere, rotation and orbit). That said, there are observed effects that were investigated, such as the tides, that were determined to have a connection to extrinsic factors, but even in that case, it is the rotation of the Earth that causes the major component of the tides (IE the null hypothesis is kept), while the extent of tides has an external factor (IE the null hypothesis is rejected).
I know that there are other definitions of the null hypothesis, with some believing it is whatever you say it is. I disagree only because I prefer a straight forward approach to scientific investigation. Drivers are within the “box” of effects. That even extends to the idea that Earth is the center of the Universe. In that case, the null hypothesis has been rejected.
The bottom line, it is up to the investigator to thoroughly show us that the null hypothesis in terms of Earth’s intrinsic (inside the box) factors can be questioned and that there is a decent chance of them being rejected. Sal cannot just ignore Earth’s intrinsic factors. That he chooses to leaves his thesis without a supporting base, thus can be ignored. Which is also why I ignore catastrophic anthropogenic warming research.
Thank you Pamela. I have not examined his work closely, but my impression is that I see difference’s between Salvatore’s “the sun done it”, and CAGW. One of many fatal problems with CAGW theory (theory is perhaps generous) is that there is extensive observable evidence that CAGW is simply wrong, whereas, as my post reflects, there is much information MISSING regarding solar influences on climate beyond simple TSI.
Because so much observational evidence is lacking, I find disparate speculative hypothesis to be grounds for real research, except for the fact that, alas, CAGW sucks the research field dry. However none should claim more then a hypothesis.
Oh, and also CAGW is , IMV, quite clearly corrupt at this point. It is difficult for anyone, let alone impossible for politicians to spend billions, and keep the dark side of human nature from manifesting. Salvatore is asking for no political change from me, nor is he asking to fundamentally change the principles on which the US were founded, nor is he claiming the sky is falling if we do not accept his thoughts. However I agree, at this point we simply lack the knowledge we need to truly understand climate.
Also, BTW Pamela, I would add what is within the box, is well, who defines the box. I suppose you are defining the earths atmosphere, land and oceans as the box. However, all the energy within the box has a complex source outside the box, and is highly interactive daily within the box, I would not discount it as outside the null. There is no doubt that insolation drives ENSO, and there is great mystery as to what drives cloud changes, surface insolation flux, atmospheric changes in jet streams etc. We simply do not know, and much information is MIA. Perhaps the Null should be “we do not know” but it does change. I would not have the hubris to say that many dozens of PHD scientists searching for and finding some evidence for solar influences well above TSI flux are not doing science. .
Posting time after time that everyone else is wrong and you are right gets real old also. It is an indicator of something. Something not good.
Agree mark, it does get old after a while. Perhaps we shoud ignore it and see the good in life, while enjoying scientists stating their findings.
Hey Pamela,
How about cloud cover changes over time.
It does. A climate regime that emphasizes El Nino-like conditions (did you know that the Atlantic also has an El Nino?) will necessarily produce clouds from evaporation. Those clouds tend to be the cumulonimbus type which do a bang up job of reflecting solar radiation away from the ocean surface.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general (10 years) which commenced in year 2005. This part has been satisfied.
If , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
We shall see in the very near future since the very weak maximum of solar cycle 24 is just about history.
Thank you for posting this morning’s correspondence from the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the UK, entitled “Met Office: Temperatures Could Plummet As Sun Enters Cooler Phase”.
Quelle surprise! On September 1, 2002, the Calgary Herald published my article that stated:
“If [as I believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
My predictive rack record is excellent to date. I really do NOT want to be correct about our 2002 global cooling prediction. A continuation of “the Pause” would be just fine.
More people will die premature deaths if climate turns colder, especially since politicians have degraded our energy systems with “green energy” schemes that are not green and produce little useful energy.
Also, I’m getting old and hate the cold.
Best regards to all, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/#comment-1968600
To be even more clear Ferdinand, I sincerely hope that your hypo is correct.
As I said above, atmospheric CO2 is not dangerously high, it is dangerously low.
If you are correct, then humanity can, in theory, maintain atmospheric CO2 above dangerously low concentrations for a long time, perhaps even in perpetuity.
If CO2 is largely driven by natural causes including temperature, then one of the next major global cooling periods (ice ages) will be the end of carbon-based terrestrial life on Earth, and this will happen “in the blink of an eye” in geologic time.
As a member of this fascinating group of carbon-based terrestrial life forms, I feel that I have an obligation to encourage our survival on this beautiful blue-water planet, at least for a little while.
Best personal regards, Allan
Post script:
In 2002 I (we) predicted global cooling to commence by 2020-2030. I am now leaning towards 2020 or sooner. I expect the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 to moderate as temperatures decline. How CO2 behaves will depend largely on the amount of cooling, of which I have no opinion at this time. Again, I hope to be wrong about this prediction – I can live with being wrong, much more than we all can live in even a slightly cooler world.
Reblogged this on the WeatherAction News Blog and commented:
Not to worry because the lead scientist said, rather like two Irishman comparing the mystic properties of Tea, AGW will overwhelm anything our star can do because…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136780/You-need-wrap-UK-set-plunge-mini-ice-age-Met-Office-warns-one-five-chance-temperatures-drop-leaves-seen-17th-century.html
Exit strategies come in a lot of forms. This one has the advantage of letting everything change but not the theory. You will now see a host of the usual suspects follow this lead and we will have a seamless, meaningless shift in climate without risk to the 100,000s of practitioners that have been attracted into the ‘discipline’ and ‘educated’ and will need jobs monitoring the progress of the coeval cooling/warming.
What happened to the ‘barbeque summer’ the MET Office predicted for 2009?
It missed the UK completely… that summer was wet, windy and totally forgettable.
The MET Office record of forecasting/predicting/guessing is likely to mean that sun-spot activity will soon rapidly increase. We must prepare, we have been warned – the wise ones have spoken. (sarc off)
Don’t forget their predictions of mild winters either before we had really cold ones instead. But these predictions were all based on the output of the computer models – what else. Maybe now they have done some actual observations/genuine studies and have got a “little” concerned that things are going t**s up.
Perhaps it has finally begun to dawn that all those who poured scorn and derision on the MET Office may have had a valid point.
Relying on ‘computer models’ is increasingly being shown up as fools’ gold – it’s not the real thing.
MET Office staff should get outside a lot more; they might just learn from Nature in the raw: That it’s wet, windy, unpredictable and not warming. Do proper research, ask intelligent questions then you might start to learn about that weird thing called climate…
atmospheric physicists at Imperial College London analysed daily measurements of the spectral composition of sunlight made between 2004 and 2007 by NASA’s SORCE satellite. They found that the amount of visible light reaching Earth increased as the Sun’s activity declined — warming the Earth’s surface.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101006/full/news.2010.519.html
Leif has stated his position and his reasons for his positions which is fine, and others like myself have stated our positions.
Time(I hope) should tell who is and who is not correct. This is in a wait and see situation for now. Actually all of the diverse opinions about climate change are in a wait and see situation.
I hope the prolonged solar minimum will be as severe as is possible and at the same time CO2 concentrations go up as much as possible so we can see how the global temperature will react. Maybe this will finally bring some clarity to the situation.
My bottom line is I want to know one way or the other, and all I have done in the meantime is taken a position and put forth my reasons why ,on this matter. It is hard to have a position on something if you can not back it up with reasoning.
Do I repeat my position yes I do ,but so does everybody else.
It is hard to have a position on something if you can not back it up with reasoning
But you have not done that at all.
I have back it up with reasoning by looking into the past and seeing what took place.
I guess I don’t understand what’s Leif’s position is regarding the connection between solar activity (in its many forms) and global mean surface temperature. Can some (preferably Leif) summarize it?
There is no compelling enough evidence to convince me that the solar influence is a major driver. It is clear that there is a 0.1 degree solar effect, but that drowns in the noise.
Thanks. And I agree, we lack evidence.
Not to worry, evidence is on its way!
Few Interglacials last much longer than our lovely moment in the meaningless sun.
So, does this mean the global warming model outputs are just a small step from being invalidated? What temperature changes can we expect by 2100 now: plus or minus 6.6C?These global warming proponents are very good at seeing which way the wind blows and placing bets both ways. Just when the global warming gravy train appears to be about to fly off the rails, thank the Green Gods that the great high priests have the foresight (or lack of integrity) to fling themselves forward to quickly patch the broken rails.
On the contrary, if we slip into an extended period of cooling, the vindication of CAGW will be chiseled in stone by the warmist crowd. Their textbooks will say, “By 2015, CAGW theory had been robustly confirmed. However, as solar activity continued to decline in the following years, overhwhelming the effects of mandade GHGs,….”
As far as I am concerned:
NO Archived Data, and/or
NO Detailed Description of Methods, and/or
NO Complete Computer Code, and/or
NO Reproducibility =
NO SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE!
Hiding behind a “non-disclosure” agreement or “intellectual property right restrictions” is cause for derision; such attempts should not be accepted for publishing or consideration in a scientific venue.
Your comments are misleading. I have just been reading the fulltext , via the link in the posting and there is a detailed section on methods and about 60 refs .
To give other readers an indication of how detailed the info is , here is just one part of the methods section :
”
Methods
The control model. We use the Met Office Hadley Centre general circulation
model, HadGEM2-CC (carbon cycle)55, with historical and future forcings
specified according to the Fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5)
as used in HadGEM2-ES (Earth System)30. This version of HadGEM2 is a ‘high
top’ model with 60 vertical levels and an upper boundary at 84 km, so is capable of
resolving relevant stratospheric processes56–58. The horizontal resolution is 1.875
longitude by 1.25 latitude. The ocean resolution is 11, increasing in the
tropics to 0.3, with 40 vertical levels. The TSI is partitioned across six shortwave
spectral bands (0.2–10 mm) with spectral changes associated with changing TSI
accounted for. For the historical period, the TSI and spectrally resolved irradiance
(SSI) used is that recommended by CMIP5 (Lean, Calculations of solar irradiance,
http://sparcsolaris.gfz-potsdam.de/cmip5.php, accessed 2 June 2009 from the
earlier fuberlin site), with a repeating 11-year cycle, based on the period 1998–2008,
imposed for future scenarios. Time-varying ozone distributions include a
component related to solar variability30.”
There is much more .
The comment about copyright is also misleading . The authors make it clear that the Met Office Unified model used is available under licence , like most computer programs , and as a UK taxpayer , if the Met Office can pick up a bit of money for the work their employees do , then it lessens the burden on me.
However the main complaint about your dismissive comments is that it might discourage readers from learning from some of the refs ( if they can get through the paywalls) , eg the refs on the Maunder min on climate as seen by different workers :
42. Cubasch, U. et al. Simulation of the role of solar and orbital forcing on climate.
Adv. Space Res. 37, 1629–1634 (2006).
43. Gray, L. J. et al. Solar influences on climate. Rev. Geophys. 48, RG4001 (2010).
44. Eddy, J. A. The Maunder Minimum. Science 192, 1189–1202 (1976).
45. Luterbacher, J. et al. The late Maunder Minimum (1675-1715) – A key period
for studying decadal scale climatic change in Europe. Clim. Change 49, 441–462
(2001).
It is a common complaint by some of the professionals, like Lief, that the quality of scientific understanding on this website is disappointingly low. Well it is not going to improve if people like you discourage education by reading from professional scientists just because you disapprove of an article.
ITSS.
Come on guys.
Let’s hear for Pope. From his encyclical to God’s eyes, the order goes forth: dial the sun down. The sun goes down!
Fling funds to 800. lov. Papa.
Smile please.
Well… we still call it sun “rise” and sun “set” or sun “down” and NOT “Earth Turned Away” and “Earth Turned Towards”, the sun…. in English anyway.
Even amongst the science types, for example:
http://www.sunrisesunset.com/
Maybe the only thing that can dismantle this climate change thing is actual climate change.
Leif says I say
You say that if the sun does this or that, then the climate will do that or this, but you fail to demonstrate that that follows from your assumptions and also fail to forecast what the Sun will do, so your forecast has no value.
MY REPLY- is I have shown through the record of past historical temperature data that at times of prolonged deep solar minimum periods the sustained global temperature trend has been lower and at times of prolonged solar maximum periods the sustained global temperature has been up, and that the recent solar lull of 2008-2010 shows that my low average value solar parameters are attainable.
Further it does not take much of a leap forward to say during the recent prolonged solar minimums ,those being the Maunder and Dalton ,had solar parameter values which were probably similar to the solar lull of 2008-2010 and the corresponding global temperature trend according to all of the data(not manipulated yet) has been down. Therefore my assumptions are based on valid reasoning.
As far as what the sun is going to do going forward no one really knows including you Leif, but I do think I know what the climate is going to do if my solar parameters are attained.
recent prolonged solar minimums ,those being the Maunder and Dalton, had solar parameter values which were probably similar to the solar lull of 2008-2010
I will agree with that, but then the temperatures should have been similar and they have not been, end of story.
Nope, this is an error. The temperatures could have been anything; they depend on the past as well as on current solar parameters.
============
I do think I know what the climate is going to do
Perhaps an attack of the DK-syndrome?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Leif, are you now an expert in psychology too? Too funny.
Good link. I especially like …
As David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University conclude: “The miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.”
We can quietly ponder which of you is in which category 🙂
Personally, I enjoy your back and forth banter and have learned from both of you.
Crikey Bernard, don’t encourage him he will just get worse.
Here is a great plot:
http://rjh.org/~rjh/canberra/canberra-weather-ll.html
It is updated daily.
When the sun is up, It is hot. When it is night time, it is cold. Hot, cold, hot, cold etc…
Since the earth always is radiating during the day and night, (unless I am wrong about that) then the 20C swing in temperature in 12 hours is due to incident radiation from… the sun no less. That is pretty incredible. Surface temperatures swings with such magnitudes in such a short period of time. Every Day.
That variation in surface temp is due to a variation in nominal solar radiation from say… average to zero in 12 hours. One would think that with this information (20 C delta), a 1% variation in solar output could contribute a surface temperature variation of say 0.2C in 12 hours. Based on simple scaling. So why would not a smaller yet sustained reduction in solar output not yield a reduction in average surface temp? I think it is a rational conjecture to presume that the solar output variation has an effect, when it can be so glaringly observed on a daily basis.
+1
They are preparing the latest excuse for why the earth isn’t warming. The sun did it.
No it is not the end of the story for two reasons. Reason number one is the solar lull’s duration was not near long enough in time and it was not proceeded by enough years of sub- solar activity in general.
The lull of 2008-2010 followed very closely countless years of above average solar activity.
Here are countless graphs of temperature data which all support my findings.
http://www.c3headlines.com/chartsimages.html
The lull of 2008-2010 followed very closely countless years of above average solar activity.
So did the Dalton Minimum and the 1900-minimum: http://www.leif.org/research/Fig-35-Estimate-of-Group-Number.png
hmm…
http://www.leif.org/research/Fig-35-Estimate-of-Group-Number.png
The really hard cold years of the Dalton mimimum came in the middle of the second low cycle. Presumably thermal inertia of the oceans buffers the changes for decade or two.
This is going to hit hardest around 2020-2025.
True, yet we had a very long minimum beginning about 1630. Ocean overturning is in the vicinity of 1,000 years. The entire climate system is full of disparate drivers, all of undetermined influence, some seasonal, some decadal, some on century scales and some on cycles lasting many thousands of years. The timing of how all these interact is ever varying, so perhaps no one should expect to see a consistent similar response in any one factor.
I took a look at the first graph, http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01bb0846feef970d-pi .
It’s a plot of the last 20 May US temperatures, showing a decline. It makes no mention of the Sun. Shouldn’t there be a mention of the Sun if it supports your findings? Perhaps it supports an inverse relationship between temperature and population. Or temperature and and the performance of the Boston Red Sox so far this year? (They’re both declining.)
If the climate did enter Maunder Minimum like conditions, how long do you think it would take for alarmists to switch from “we’re all going to die from global warming” to “we’re all going to die from global cooling.” They’ll probably stick with the “hot or cold, it’s all climate change” meme until voters get fed up and threaten to cut climate funding. Then the “settled science” will suddenly change to account for CO2 cooling. One thing’s for sure, they will not want us to use more fossil fuels to try to warm the climate. To them, the ends justify the means, so they will still push for an end to the use of fossil fuels even if it means millions have to freeze to death.
It would still be your fault and you would still be compelled to pay for your sins.
If the climate did enter Maunder Minimum like conditions, how long do you think it would take for alarmists to switch from “we’re all going to die from global warming” to “we’re all going to die from global cooling Won’t happen because there’s no capitalist villain to blame and so there’s no political advantage.
You don’t think they could come up with a “capitalist villain” to explain global cooling? When have they ever let logic or common sense stop them from seeking a political advantage?
Science advances one funeral at a time. So if the average age of climate scientist is 35 and life expectancy is 80. I would expect the consensus to shift 45 years after definitive evidence of falsification is established.
I personally don’t think we are going to enter into a new ice age anytime soon, but I do think we’ll see prolonged cooling for the next few decades.
“even if it means millions have to freeze to death”
As long as it’s not them, of course.
I think they’d be in for a big fat surprise.
The alarmists and their useful idiots are confident that if they align with the pigs and do their bidding, they will be rewarded by being invited to live with them in the luxury and warmth of the farmhouse. Then they won’t have to struggle for survival with the rest of the animals out in the barnyard. So yes, they are definitely in for a big fat surprise.
@Louis Hunt
+10. Well said. The alarmists/useful idiots don’t know what’s coming and how it will end for them if their wishes came true. I wish they did. Seriously.
“….so they will still push for an end to the use of fossil fuels even if it means millions have to freeze to death…”
But of course! The Cult of Gaea crowd is all for reducing mother earth’s population burden to a fraction of what it is today, so that the Great Goddess Earth can restore herself to pristine perfection unhindered by the virus of humanity.
I wouldn’t expect much better from Al Gore or John Holden, but I am surprised that the Pope has signed on to a political scheme to condemn the third world to perpetual hunger and poverty. Instead of “feed the hungry,” the mantra seems to now be, “If you can’t feed them all, kill a billion or so.”
The world might be a better place with a few billion less people, but do we trust the IPCC and the grant-gobbling priesthood of the Church of AGW [and/or various other politically motivated bureaucrats] to decide which of us to eliminate for the greater good of the survivors?
The Watergate figure “Deep Throat” had it right: “Follow the money.”
But you can feed them all, the UN said that $25 billion a year would be needed to end world hunger, so why is the Pope backing spending $100 billion on cutting CO2? he should be pushing for a concerted effort to end world hunger (and maybe the church could chip in a few billion to help). WHY???
Will this Pope go down in Catholic history as the one who worked the miracle of the freezing of the five billion?
I said two fold remember the word duration. The solar lull ‘s duration was not long enough. Only 2 years.
the other minima around 1800 and 1900 also only lasted 2 years or so. What is perhaps more important is what the maxima were.
Leif, let me try to approach it in this manner. Your shortfall when it comes to climate is you are unable to intergrade all the various factors that are involved when it comes to the climate that will not result in a given item (the sun) changing in a given way resulting in an x climate outcome. Somehow you have this opinion that an x change in solar variability has to immediately translate to an x change climatic response. In addition you seem not to be able to incorporate lag times into the equation of the climate. You expect instant results from something said to have an effect upon the climate.
I will add, this climate regime change, and natural variation of the climate within a climatic regime are entirely two different things. What throws you off is the natural climatic variations within a particular climatic regime. This is what obscures for you the solar climate connection.
In addition I will go so far to say the climate can not change into another climatic regime without the aid of solar variability but that does not mean it can not fluctuate within a given climate regime. That being the crux of your problem when it comes to the solar/climate connection.
This is not astronomy this is the climate which is chaotic and non linear it does not work like clock work astronomy.
Now below is the second part of my answer to your post which keep trying to equate an x climate change to an x solar change and if it does not happen the solar/climate connection is not present.
Those who do not want to accept solar variability as a driver of the climate does not impact my thoughts about the subject in any way.
I am going with what the historical climatic record shows, and what (talking about from the Holocene Optimum -present) correlates best to it, which is Milankovitch Cycles, with Solar Variability superimposed upon that cycle , with a further refinement of the climatic trends when the AMO/PDO phase, ENSO ,and Volcanic activity are further superimposed upon the climatic trends due to the slow moving Milankovitch Cycles and Solar variability.
In addition the relative strength of the earth’s magnetic field has to be taken into account which can enhance or moderate solar effects.
That is what the data shows which has not been manipulated.
Salvatore apparently does not understand well-regarded Earth-intrinsic explanations (or chooses to ignore them) of long term and short term weather pattern variations and climate regime shifts. Chaotic complex inter-connected systems cannot be calculated to average out to zero. Salvatore and other solar-enthusiasts, as well as much of the CO2 crowd demonstrate this same lack of understanding, likely due to a low acumen related to Earth’s thermo and fluid dynamic properties intrinsic to a rotating plastic oblate spheroid in an elliptical orbit impinged on by gravitational pulls from its moon and the Sun.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/
So, to go chasing after some tiny variation outside the Earth while neglecting the wickedly complex set of larger intrinsic variables that could explain Earth’s climate and weather anomalies stretches credulity.
@Pamela
???
You seem to be replying to Salvatore’s post where he is explaining his point of view that he does understand long and short term weather variations and in fact that they are intrinsic to his theory, saying that he does not. Maybe this is a comment based on previous engagements – I don’t know I have only jumped into this now, but your comment reads as very strange. Cross posting perhaps?
We really just don’t know how much is intrinsic, earth cycles, and how much extrinsic, solar cycles. Gotta be an incredibly complex dance among all of them.
===================
You may be confusing the use of the terms intrinsic versus extrinsic. Intrinsic factors are Earth’s own mechanisms. Extrinsic factors are mechanisms outside of Earth. Can they both be drivers? Sure. Tides have both intrinsic and extrinsic drivers. The main effect is because of Earth’s rotation (an intrinsic driver). The extent of tides has an extrinsic driver.
In terms of Earth’s climate and weather pattern variations, I am of the opinion that intrinsic mechanisms are the null hypothesis.
Heh, I would guess the Sun has more effect on the Earth than the Earth does on the Sun, but they certainly do embrace.
================
Figure 2 is hilarious, cold in Europe and the northeast US takes negative Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillation states, that will warm the Arctic not cool it.
“These questions have been settled by science.” Surgeon General
IPCC AR5 TS.6 Key Uncertainties. IPCC doesn’t think the science is settled. There is a huge amount of unknown unknowns.
According to IPCC AR5 industrialized mankind’s share of the increase in atmospheric CO2 between 1750 and 2011 is somewhere between 4% and 196%, i.e. IPCC hasn’t got a clue. IPCC “adjusted” the assumptions, estimates and wags until they got the desired mean.
At 2 W/m^2 CO2’s contribution to the global heat balance is insignificant compared to the heat handling power of the oceans and clouds. CO2’s nothing but a bee fart in a hurricane.
The hiatus/pause/lull (IPPC acknowledges as fact) makes it pretty clear that IPCC’s GCM’s are not credible.
The APS workshop of Jan 2014 concluded the science is not settled.
It has become a cottage industry in climate science to run climate models under different conditions and publish the results. These papers are normally ridiculed by the deniers.
Jamai,
Indeed and the climate model results do not tally with the measured data that’s why they are ridiculed.
Regarding the sun, another CME 2 days ago and maybe more aurora’s tonight.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/another-storm-forecast-wednesday-nightthursday
What is interesting is how few people understand the reality and legit risk of the more powerful(Carrington type) events.
We hear almost daily about the theorized(science is settled) risk from increasing CO2, that life on this planet reacts to convincingly as a beneficial gas………with the exception of humans armed with projections from global computer models loaded with theoretical assumptions.
Yet, very few are aware of the real risk(not theorized) based on actual observations of the sun, that many refer to as another “Carrington” event.
http://www.history.com/news/a-perfect-solar-superstorm-the-1859-carrington-event
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/186805-the-solar-storm-of-2012-that-almost-sent-us-back-to-a-post-apocalyptic-stone-age
Hmm,, I believe Dr lsvalgaard did a paper on the Carrington event in 2004 (i may be wrong on the publishing date)
michael
yes: http://www.leif.org/research/1859%20Storm%20-%20Extreme%20Space%20Weather.pdf
It looks like the plasma just missed us. NOAA has downgraded the event and says unlikely we’ll see aurora in NA. http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/g3-downgraded-g1